KrustyKidd

From the article you provided the link for I extracted a few things. Some of which confirm what I already suspected, that prisoners in Guantonimo were being treated humanely. So humanely in fact that no information was being extracted from them. And then, in frustration, apparently with the need for intelligence to save lives ...... Ohhhhhhh, drawing on your body, making you wear underwear. Gee, war is so so much like ........ a strip club. 'The humanity!' Gee, sounds like what the police do. Hope you don't cross the border on a regular basis BD, this all could happen to you on entry to the US or on return to Canada. Once again, Outside of the cavity search, I went through this all during various times in the military. Gee, head of state having unlimited power. What a concept! Just think, if he was a cheese omelett at four in the morning, he orders a cheese omelett. if he want to pull out your fingernails, he pulls out your fingernails ......... and then answers for it in investigations, congressional hearings until the cows come home. I guess this comes back to the perception of torture. If you figure wearing underwear on your head (as a few recruits had to on my basic training for having a bad locker turnout) torture, what would you classify a beating as? Murder? How about getting you fingernails pulled out or genitals attacked by pliers? A holocost? Genocide? Mass murder? Going a bit further, what would a limb amputation be classified as? A supernova or a giant comet hitting the earth? I suppose it is a different threshold that separates us. Maybe you are not familiar with the powers that authorities have over the populace in various parts of the world, even here. They can hold you in a vomit soaked holding tank on a saturday night for next to no reason other than you failing to produce ID. you can be vitim to being beaten by twenty or so drunken cell mates while you wait for dawn .... or charges to be laid. When you explain your rights they throw a punch or two in a part of your body that gives no bruises, of course there are no witnesses when this happens. In other countries, they beat the living daylights out of you, in front of witnesses, even better in front of witnesses to make them more afraid and willing to talk. Even that is not torture in the normal sense. It is when they start to jab things into your skin, burn you, pull on your testicles, pull out teeth and fingers that it reaches the torture expectations of the world. Keeping a suspect awake, denying him clothing and food ...... that would piss me off, make me want to talk, but leave no lasting physical or mental effects. Then again, maybe I am hardier than most. Gee, a lawyer saying that sometimes torture is a good idea. Of course, you know me Black dog, Korporate Krusty. I would torture a whale to save a penny on a litre of gas. Ii am so inhumane, I would approve of making a suspect wear underwear on his head so I could find out which women and children filled market they planned on blowing up next.

I don't remember a lot of Trudeau jokes when he passed on. I remember a former PM died and they had a state funeral. remembered that I shook his hand twice when I was a teenager in Ottawa. I remembered that I was against much of what he stood for but also remembered that he was my PM for over a decade as I was Canadian. Never voted for him, but, he was my PM. We can't all get what we want, much like this upcomming election. There are going to be those that win and those that lose. By going to the polls we, at least become free for a fleeting moment. We try to inflict our vision of what we think this country should be. If we fail, does that mean we are banished from participating until the next election? Does that mean that whomever becomes PM is not our PM? There was a president in the USA between 1980 and '88. I'm sure that you remember as you love to make jokes about him but like a child cannot do so without saying something stupid. I, like you, do not feel that this man was a Churchill or Lincoln but he was a President. He stared down the Soviet Union and refused to conceede with them during negotiations. They came back because of him, complete with acepting the concessions. As for the rest of the 'idiots' out there, allow me to show you a few who disagree with you on his accomplishments. Regan mourned in former Soviet Union And here is a link to a picture of Gorbachev, his hand on the US flag which is drapped over Regan's coffin. Only Idiots Approved of Regan As for your jokes, Lonius, this is the first time I have ever read a joke by you so stop trying to come off like this is a regular occurence. You have wit yes, but jokes? Uh uh. This was done to be ignorent and displays nothing but irrational hatred of a dead person that was a former head of state of a country to which you have continually shown verbal hatred for in pretty much every post of yours on this forum. I don't ask anybody to beleive that he was great, good or a 'marronette.' Just acknowlege that the guy was a president without immature snitty garbage accompanying whatever comments you can't wait to print out to take advantage of a percieved love of him from the right in Canada..

Hi Rev. I will read the link when I get back home. I'm on the road and my lap top doesn't have PDF. I book marked it though. As for the rest of your post, you have to understand that no matter what you feel, beleive or are outraged by, the war was legal simply by the inaction of the UN to change their previous resolutions. It matters not what they meant, what they intended or what they forgot to put in, it is what it is and it makes if nothing else, the US action - not illegal. The rest, was it moral? Was it right? Was it benificial to the US only or to the rest of the world has nothing to do with the legality of it. They are different points. The point of whether it was legal or not, yes it was. At worst, nobody can say it was not legal and have it ruled as such in a international court.

Rev, the US was not unilaterally enforcing a resolution. It, acting as one of the 'member states assisting the government of Kuwait' was enforcing a ceasefire agreement during a time of war. You of course know that a cesaefire is always conditional right? Well, this one was as well, and those conditions were broken by Iraq and thus, for all legal reasons makes it as if hostilites never ceased. Can you give me the link to that resolution the UN passed to stop the US and other 'member states assisting the government of Kuwait' from carrying out the action against Iraq after they had broken the '91 ceasefire again and again despite warnings from the UN? I know of no such resolution and would like to be set straight, a resolution disolving the above quoted resolutions would be just as good as well to solidify your point. Once again, I know of none. As for the attempt to enlarge the issue to make an overwhelming moral case, one point at a time Rev, please. We can deal with everything once we get over this legality hump.

Thanks guys, I guess all those who are on the 'Evil US always lies and manufactures data' band wagon will believe this new report. Funny how they are selective in admitting evidence and reports. Kudos to the State Department, goes to show that they want things to be on the up and up as much as possible. I wonder what the real numbers are?

It is a continuation of the Gulf War. Not a new one. Iraq did not get rid of all WMD material, equipment and resources as well did not fully comply with the UN resolutions pertaining to delivery systems. The legality has nothing to do with clear and present dangers and the fabled imminent danger. That is merely a political selling point. Read and return, remember to cross reference them. If you need help, there are lots of legal articles on it. Go to google and punch in- Iraq war legal issues. Blix's reports to the UN are also pertinent here, read those too. No WMD but lots of proof of non complience to the resolutions and subsequently leaves the door open for 'member states, assisting the government of Kuwait' to carry out the terms of the cease fire when it was broken.

Illegal War? Rev, get some facts. Read some resolutions and comon back and we can move on. There is lots out there to refute you, and none to support you. Read the resolutions, cross reference them as they were intended and you will see why even the French acknowledged that it was legal. To get you started, here is a discussion on this From 'American Kid Asks Daddy Thread' To summarize the summary: Nor do they exclude that possiblity Even Blix, who was doing everything he could to avert war could not say that WMD themselves were not in Iraq. Hmmm, that would mean WMD right? Hmmm, that would mean WMD right? Somewhere in the amount of 2 million pounds of it, enough to fill three or four semi trailers. Gee, Saddam was at least staying busy while he hampered inspections. What could he have been moving around with all those helping hands? WO! Iraq was seemingly decieving the inspectors. Imagine that. Why though? MAybe to keep the stuff they had said they destroyed even though they didn't? Hmmm that would mean deception and not cooperating with inspectors right? Hmmm, that would mean WMD if dropped in one of the warheads they had right? Hmmm, afterwards Blix discovered these have a range of more than 600 miles. This would mean prohibitted weapons right? Hmmm, scince then they have discovered scientists with crates of 'take home work' documents in their homes. One even had parts for a freakin particle separator in his garden as 'take nhome work' for crying out loud! Where is this stuff? Well, they bury fighter jets and move labs around. Why is it beyond the scope of anybody's immagination to think that three trailers containg drums of whatever are not somewhere under the ground in the uninspected two thirds of Iraq? Or in one of these unaccounted for warheads in one of the 120 uninspected weapons depots? Anyhow, the world thought they were there. Herre are some quotes from leaders who are quoted using the same intelligence the US worked on. And here are the applicable resolutions: 686 686 678 On 27 Jan, Blix reported all sorts of stuff still being discovered in Iraq. They were cooperating he said, 'an encouraging sign' but nowhere near the spirit of the orders they had signed the ceasefire with. For a country that was supposed to be free of 'WMD and all quipment, related material and resources' (including dual purpose stuff) thery sure had a lot that was 'discovered' rather than 'turned in.' 687 Seems that this all adds up to a cease fire that was broken by Iraq. Or should I say, never fullly complied with. Therefore, member states (USA, France, Britain and whoever else including Syria, SA and all) cooperating with the government of Kuwait, acting under res 678 para2 "all subsequent resolutions" can simply resume military action. I have no illusions of what would happen to Israel if they didn't have them. As well, if you say that Israel with Nukes and an elected Government is the same as a band of Belt Bombers dancing around a smoking missile shouting "Ali Akkbarr!" and firing AK 47s in the air I have to question your sanity.

Maybe you don't get it. People do not have to love somebody or worship them to have respect. I don't see the humor Lonius. A head of state is dead, a representative of the people whether you liked him or not. If being PM or President is a position where upon death and during a nation's mourning, gets no respect from yourself, I question your scincerity in other things. After all, did you not contend forever and a day on this forum that the US only worships money? Here they have a state funeral, honoring one of their presidents and you make fun of him, then call those who did have respect for him 'idiots.' As for the previous time you did something like this, you honored those who lost loved ones in 911 with the words 'Happy Aniversary.' Then went into a post about how the US sponsored Pinochet and all. I think a little more sensitivity would have been in order there, but seems that you are sesitive only when it is bashing the US, even using things that they honor as weapons in you snitiness. Can you think of a better way to tells us that the US sponsored terror at various times other than to tie it to rememberence of loved ones? 'Happy Aniversary' indeed. After posting with you for this time, this surprises me, I had thought that 911 remark was only a fluke. Now I see that it is deeply imbedded. Yes, vindictive and mean. I will add petty to that as well. The US stops worshiping money for a week or so and you make fun of it. Funny guy.

Pretty hilarious Lonius. If I remember right, it was you who last year on September 11 said "Happy Aniversary." While I appreciate your wit and respect your political convictions, sometimes it seems you only beleive the things you do simply to argue. I mean, when garbage like this and the afore mentioned utterance comes out, it shows that you are not what you purport to be - giving, generous and sensitive. Rather it displays a childish side, laced with an ample amount of vengefulness and meaness. Whether you liked the guy or hated him, people are mourning. A fair amount of people consider the man a hero, and if nothing else was a leader who is now undergoing a state funeral and you find that funny? I can deal with you saying that you felt that his policies were wrong and all, but to come out with this idiocy shows that you don't give a shit about anything.

Try to make this quick OIC. You have some good points that have been covered elsewhere I think. As for the UN; Each Nation in the UN is not equal. They have a voice but all do not adhere to the same standards of human rights or of the measure of progress. As well, many have nothing to offer but rather stand in the way. A system to equalize voting power with a given standard of rights to have power would be in order. Once legitimized, the UN would then hold a real perspective on what is and what is not good for the world rather than being a pulpit to simply voice anti Israel and US concerns. At this point the US may actually consider placing a fair amount of it's troops under UN control. Only time will tell. You want to know that some believe that things will not change. If they do, the hard lines they have drawn will crumble. I think that things will change rather quickly for the good. Blowback I think is how so many from the Left like to say. The world has changed over the past couple years. Before the US would simply have assasinated Saddam and installed a new, more friendlier leader - until the next crisis.

Great point OIC. And you are a step up in my book as well after reading your last. The US like many other first world countries has been involved in torture, either by proxy or at least supporting it. While no surprise to most it is the scandal aspect of it that hits home the most. Let's say that the Haugue conveened a group of war criminals in it's court. The evidence is brought out and here it is; People like Pol Pot, Milosivic, Stalin and all are accused of putting a broomstick up a guy's butt, putting a sand bag on his head, having his niece smile beside a group of naked prisoners smoking a ciggarette. Exhibit #2. He tied electrical wires to some guy and told him he was going to throw the switch. I doubt that anybody would be hanged for this. You can see where I am going with this right? Hardly the stuff of a Nuremburg trial but wrong nonetheless. In fact, more scadelous than anything else when compared to the everyday life of an Arab living in one of these regimes where more physical torture is fairly commonplace. You see the discrepency and see it for what it is. Bravo. A couple of friends of mine attended the SAS Escape and Evasion course in Northern England and told me of the beatings they recieved as part of the POW portion of the course. Severe, more severe than anything these prisoners went through. One of them had to see a doctor upon return to Canada and was asked to fill out a criminal report which of course he refused as this was all done with his permission upon enrollment on the course. In it's proper perspective this torture issue is more of an Anti America round of ammo than anything based in reality. What country does not torture to some extent? Even Canada has it's problems as do the Belgians to name a couple. What is unique is that they did it under the eye of the world at a time where they were saying that things must change. Yes they must change, yes they must get obiedience, yes they must make prison a terrible place to be. They must also be more carefull, like newly fallen snow, from this era on, every step will show. I hope that it is a lesson learned and not simply a lesson for them to be more careful not to get caught.

No Black Dog, what I quoted is normally seen as the degree of torture occuring during wartime and even peace time. The frat pranks were more in line with what was going on in the prison than the quoted torture. In other words, the degree of torture occuring was on a level far below which torture is normally equated with. That said, it is still not acceptable however let's try and keep this based on some sort of reality. I suppose that scince you say that it is not of the degree of Gestapo Tecniques and even remotely like police tactics used in Russia that you tend to agree with me. Does this all have to take place at once? Do I have to live in a third world country during wartime for this to happen? Or might it happen in peacetime in many countries that are currently a dictatorship? I take it to mean that during war things are not supposed to be any worse than they are during peace, kind of like going in for an operation and the doctor never having to make an incision. A happy world you live in. Before you go off the deep end as you did with Hugo last week (he really must be getting to you) I will reiterate my postition. This is by no means permissable, no means acceptable however, given the whole operation and actions that the US is taking to investigate it, bring democracy to Iraq is only a blip on the screen. Anybody that sees anything more sinister than ineffectual military supervision, a poor policy for POWs and some idiotic individuals working in those prisons is merely looking for an excuse to bash the US.

Just enjoying the frantic repititious counter arguments of yours Black Dog. Like a caged squirel and it's repititious movements. GTG, see how you are when I get back in a couple days.

He believes in something Hugo. And that belief is so strong that it distorts the proof in front of him. So much so that he ignores some things, amplifies others and also makes it hard for him to keep his stories straight. He takes the words in front of him and reads between the lines in ways that were not intended by the author to suit this belief. Because his case is so weak this is his only way to support it.

These are atrocities and .... Here is some examples for those more sensitive from a Russian Source. Police torture in Russia This is a sample of a Frat Prank/Hazing. The torture. The inhumanity of man to man. So it is the detention itself that is the torture? In a war zone, and you say I am out of it.

I don't have one cent invested in big business and yet find that comment one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. Let's build some sweat shops in Mexico so that they can build some low cost widgets so we can make some high cost radio towers. Then maybe when they get enough money together and we have some big bucks, we can meet at a table and sign a realistic Kyoto agreement. Until then, whatever big eco dollars we spend to save an acre of landfill while hundreds of thousands of miles of rainforest are being levelled are meaningless except to your 'Kyoto Show' and idiotic bottomless trough policies. A more realistic problem is money and the lack of it. Sove that and you then have the luxury of doing all sorts of art programs, eco expiriments,SETI stuff, and putting high speed in every igloo. Jobs, taxes, security.

I heard of torture tecniques used by the Nazis and Japanese during WWII on Allied and Resistance fighters. Little did I know that man could lower itself further than chopping off body parts and gouging out eyeballs with hot pokers. Underwear and sand bags on heads, naked males degraded while remaining annonomous with sandbags on heads. 'Oh the humanity!." It's almost as bad as a college frat inititiation. US Bastards.

LOL. Nice try Black Dog, so the US is not powerful enough to stop this from happening? In other words, the US has simply done what they have said all along, allow Iraqis to carry on with the democratic process. Clearly this is an indicator of their honorable intent. Anyhow. Good luck with Hugo, you'll need it. I have to go away for a few days and hope to put you up against the ropes again on my return.

Your argument has changed. You said the US would not relinguish control and cited the Presidency as an example Now that the pick of the US has declined they did not interfere, hence your origional argument is invalid as the US has turned over control in that area. PM, President whatever, you said President origionally, now it is the PM postition that it all hinges on. LOL, what happens after you've been once again proved wrong? It goes to Minister of Antiquities? Comon, least you can admit when you are wrong about something can't you?

Black Dog, you can go back to oiling your sandwhichboard again. You have, by events of today, been proved wrong on your contentions that the US maintains control on the council. Save up your energy for the next unsubstanciated anti US rant. YAWAR NEW IRAQI PRESIDENT Later.

And you have a narrow mind. You are stuck on this interim government thing thinking that it is permanent in some way. it is a transitional phase Black Dog, they could throw GW Bush in there and it would not mean a damm thing. It is a caretaker government that is designed to pave the way. Of course you know this but simply need stuff to throw around to keep the US in place as the villan. Hey, I got an idea! In order to make you happy we will make the transitional government more to your liking. In order to do this we will have to hold elections and run candidates and such. There, that's the solution. Of course, there being no sure way to hold even rudamentry elections at the moment we will have to have a tranisional government but ...... then again we are back to square one. Damm. OK, how about this, we let the Iraqis pick their own guys. Where tho start, what to do .... to do .... hmmmmm. I know, hold elections. That way we can see who gets to pick the ........ Damm Black Dog, this is going nowhere. OK, let's try it the US's way with a twist. We back an Islamic cleric and trust that he understands democracy and elections. Or, round up a few random insurgents and put them there on a rotating basis. Damm, you must like that as you seem to hold them on a pedestel as the 'Real voice of the Iraqi people.' That wouldn't work too well as they would simply start blowing the council up soon as the US left them alone. No Black Dog, looks like the only way to make it through this transitional phase is to have an interim government actually placed by somebody. Hmmm, who should place them? The Russians, French, UN? There's an idea, the Interim Council with the US pressuring. What have they recommended so far? Exactly what is happening. Now, here is where you and I become like child and adult. It is a reality check Black Dog. You think the Iraqis can just go ahead and fail, you seem to have no problem just letting them do whatever they want without caring that a lot of lives have been lost in this endeavor and ten times as many still can if it fails. Sure, they want to run it for themselves, teenagers want to be free as well. You going to give your thirteen year old daughter carte blanche to a Visa card, the car, the house and everything else? When you ask if there is anything wrong, I have to say that yes, there is. I would have hoped that things would have been better stabilized so that the US could have given it over to a more Iraqi interim government. Oh well. I don't see anything sinister in this, if the US has to impose more authority than they wanted I would imagine that they would pressure for two of their own guys rather than an unknown. Like, there is a single minded purpose here - to install an informed democratic society through vote. Interim Council and the Presidency Choice Gee Black Dog, that sure sounds like a different story then the one you project with the US calling the shots period rather than influencing as they should. If, as I said, there is no free elections then that will provide you with all the anti US rhetoric for decades to come. As for your two comparissons of the wedding story, how do you make the determination that the US story is complety false? Gut feel? History? How? Even me being pro US cannot tell if they are right and the Iraqi story is not true. At worst however, a terrible error was made, not a deliberate killing of a Wedding party, at best, a terrorist transition point was taken out. Somewhere between the two is the truth.

Former Exile Is Selected As Interim Iraqi Leader Meet the new boss. A man for all intrigues So it does indeed look like we will have a return of CIA-style sovereignty to Iraq, leading up to a Sunni-dominated government that represents a melding of the pre-Saddam Baath Party and the military dictatorship that preceded it, albeit with a new pro-USA flair. Check out the word 'interim' in the dictionary Black Dog. When the Interim Government has called elections and they get fixed, then you have a case, untyil then, you have simply a rant. Nothing new? I would say that forming what is going to be an all Iraqi government to pave the way for free elections instead of simply installing a US Groomed dictator is fairly new. Of course, you wish that they would leave now and allow militants to take over but, unlike you (or the way you seem to be anyhow) the rest of us value human life and wish to see the people get to at least choose rather than have it dictated at the end of a gun by militents. I would answer your post point for point but, scince you are unable to see that things are a little different (until the US is proven to be doing the same as they have always done) this time, I leave you to your 'oil for blood' slogans. Just wondering though, scince you contend that the US lies and the insurgents don't (Wedding and all) what history of inquiries do the insurgents have compared to the US? When do they admit they have made errors and such? What makes you feel that they would never use public opinion as a way of achieving their goals? I, on the other hand, am following this story before I make final judgement. There is a lot to it that is suspicious but of course, you, the hanging judge already know everything, the eye of Black Dog sees everything.

No need to go point by point Black Dog, as you can see I have pretty well most of them covered anyhow. I must admit that the notion of voluntary social change in Saudi was pretty good. I can just see all these Arab guys petitioning for women's sufferage LOL. Anyhow, no. I am not a ferverent USA supporter who overlooks all blemishes. I do however maintain that the left (who's arguments you seem to go along with fairly consistently) feel that they are the most evil, sinister collection of individuals who ever slithered across the face of the planet. Nothing they do has a good intention, nothing they attempt is what it appears to be, their word is crap and they love to watch babies writhe on the tips of their pitchforks. This is a caractiture of what I am up against. Is it any wonder that we don't discuss normally how Bush may have been over zealous, why things are not going perfect and such? To condeed one inch opens up a tidal wave of anti US garbage with only a few rational points which seems to have no end. So much shit is thrown into the air by the left (who's arguments you seem to go along with fairly consistently) in the hopes that some will stick that it makes realistic discussion laughable. Take the wedding thing last week. Nowhere has any leftist given any play to the fact that insurgents, who lack military means, commonly use, out of necessity disinformation and public opinion to battle the US. They hide amongst the population in general and are not adverse to emdangering them as Saddam did by hiding Command Posts in population centers or even killing them if it furthers their cause. Is it possible that it may not have been a wedding? You bet. However, look at every leftist post on every forum, it is not mentioned ONCE as a possiblity. On the otherhand, US forces who frequently admit miscalculation and hold enquiries contend that it was what they say it was, and that there are no indications it was the innocent thing that the Iraqis say. It serves no purpose to deliberately attack innocents save give the enemy fodder to fuel anti Americanism, which, is highly opposite to what they are trying to achieve. Yet, as in the prison fiasco, they do hold them, even prior to it becomming public as it was in that case. Did we discuss that? No, the pro war camp was too busy trying to deflect an all out assualt on the integrity of the US because of this. You ignore history and the horror and death that occurs in situations where factions fight for control amidst chaos and demand that the only stable influence leave merely to hold the Anti US banner and wave it. In order to have your way, to have the US fall into whatever leftist theory of relativity you hold dear, you would see millions of Iraqis face torture, starvation and mutilation with the end relief being, what in all probability, would be a hard Islamic Fundemamentalist Society, complete with ritual beheadings, traumatic limb amputationsand stonings. Not to mention the virtual slavery of half it's population. You don't give any thought that possibly, the US is doing what it says it is doing. Myself, to be honest, believe that the game plan has changed all along and morphed into what it is today - bring democracy to Iraq. In the begining, GW was probably sure there were copious amounts of WMD and played it as such. Upon closer examination and challenged with providing hard proof, there was no one outstanding factor to show. It like the following Terrorist connections was a vast pool of information that left no other conclusion. Iraq's terrorist ties - you have to read it to understand it, no smoking gun but if true, lots of proof indeed. For rapid consumption though, and the 'Smoking Gun Effect,' it was not as solid as they had thought. Nothing sinister there however, as so did every other leader in the free world. To expect GW to know Iraq had none or not as many as he thought while Saddam himself thought he had them (as he was told by his scientists) is silly. The war plan was comming along nicely and the secondary reasons (and there were a lot of them) took over and they went ahead. Remember when the shift went from WMD to Regieme Change? Anyhow, possibly the US intended to set up a Puppet Government origionally, that is not possible for them to do now as the only thing holding this together is their word and highly publicized effort to turn power over to the Iraqis. No, the US is bad and evil so we never got to that discussion point, as once again, I, and others like me had to counter stupid conspiracy theories as they cascaded from the left. Some were completely out on Mars and others were well founded but strived to extract too unreasonable a price to be agreed upon or even entertained ie; Rumsfeld resigning, US leave now, Bush impeachment and all. Like get real! The transition will not be pell mell with complete disreguard for life as you would have it, but in stages and steps designed to avoid culture shock and leave an extremely dangerous vacum. But no, we can't go into that because they are all bad. Never good. Always make mistakes, never do anything right and the enemy is always on a higher level of morality than they. This is why I shut you down in pretty much every argument as you just have Anti US irrationally dripping from every word. We can say how the US is not acting according to it's principals but this is war and we have to be realistic. There are bad people out there who have no rules to play with except try to tie the hands of the US with world opinion while they blow up school buses full of Iraqi kids and lop Jews heads off. They have you to help them and me to counter that. Yes the US has made mistakes, yes, their reasons are selfish, yet they coincide with the interests of the world in this case. Is a free and self governed Iraq not benificial to the world? I know you will never change your opinion so I merely try to keep your rhetoric based on reality, not deliberate and easily refuted misinformation so that onthers who are undecided don't simply have one voice to listen to. Oh well, guess that they will have to wait just a little longer then. The US is not going anywhere until these people are given the opportunity to choose their future rather than have it imposed onthem by force. Now before you come back with the usual 'but the US is forcing them ....' remember, that they are not forcing anybody except those who want to deny that choice, They have ousted a regieme that supressed Iraq, taken on those who fight for the power in Iraq and will not go until all threat to a choice is gone. This is a threat only to those who wish to sieze power in the usual manner - by force. It has little to do with the average Iraqi who has only to bear with it for however long it takes. If the average Iraqi does not understand this, who's fault is that? The US's who continually tell them they are there to give them a free vote or the insurgents, aided by people like you who provide the Insurgents with moral support by carrying out non stop US bashing telling them the US is wrong and trying to steal their country? No wonder they are suspect. I suppose you know of Saddam's interview with Dan Rather where he said that he knew the US would never attack because of all the protestors and world opinion? Same tactics, same result. Miscalculation and death. While not causing action, you and those like you stand on the sidelines giving insurgents, who will eventually lose, hope. Hope that the resolve of the US will dissipate come November, hope that they will be victorious, hope that they will come to power and dictate thir policies and leave the people of Iraq to their mercy. It is possible that the hope you give them costs lives as they attempt to portray themselves more powerful than they actually are with atrocious acts against everyone in Iraq. These acts will get greater come June 30 as they become more desparate and then subside possibly revitalising come closer to November. In any case, the factioning of America provides great comfort to them and is a morale lowerer for the troops. 'Support the troops' is a slogan. Leftists do it by trying undermine them and get them home. Have any idea how the Insurgents would take this unlikely event? A retreat, and it, however unlikely would not be a peaceful one as they would more than likely attack US forces and the people of Iraq to solidify their power relentlesly as they left causeing even more death. Who's quote is that? So you think that after all this high and mighty talk that the US is going to bring in Saddam's brother? How do you think that would sit with anybody? Comon BD, even people like me would jump the pro US ship if that happened. What do you think when 25 million Iraqis rise up which they would. It's a leftist dream come true for that to happen and every right winger's nightmare, you wouldn't get that liucky. Nothing new in your usual argument. The US was bum buddies with Stalin during WWII, and at one point Stalin and Hitler were giving each other back rubs. So what is it you are getting at? That you are unable to grasp that politics is a fluid action? Comon now, see what I mean by stupid arguments? Now, if you want to go into US Hegemony and their attempts to circumvent the actions of all other powers I will, but you must also be open minded enogh to acknowledge that the Euros and Asians are attempting the same thing as are the Arabs. His invasion of Iran was great for the US, the Invasion of Kuwait was not, the poised invasion of Saudi Arabia was not and his continual aspirations to achieve nuclear power coupled with his continuing deciet in keeping his WMD capability showed that his probable aspirations had not changed. Even as his people suffered sanctions, no fly zones and UN resolutions. What alternative was open to the world? More opportunities? Yes. How many? One more, two more? We can play this all day but the US, with 9 11 chose no more. They chose to take advantage of Saddam's miscalculation and use him as a door to change the face of the Middle East and yes, I hate to use your words for my argument, but to "force democracy." Yes, the US let the rebels down after Gulf I and it was a moment of true shame however, remember, the last thing the US or the World needed was another Iran so a hard choice had to be made. Here, I agree with you, it was a terrible miscalculation and should have been in the planning before Desert Storm.

The Warden from ‘Cool Hand Luke.’ Good movie. No, to many the ‘Oil Argument’ does just what you say and is false as I have provided proof of oil sales to ‘84% non-US interests.’ Yet you say that these groups represent the will of the Iraqi people? Let them fight it out yu figure? More deatrh, more terror and children being killed. Wow Black Dog, you rock! So true yet is not a democratically voted in government a fair one? Leaving now as you wish would ensure that the people never get a chance to make their wishes known. In the US plan, they may vote in a dictatorship but as long as it was done out of choice is the main thing. You equate democracy with our form of government when it is not. We are parliamentary, the US is a republic however both are voted in using the democratic process. It is this process that is the issue, not the form of government that takes power afterwards. With me anyhow, the US may have their own ideas but to simply allow the insurgentS to seize power and hope for the best is bull. ANOTHER VIEW Gee willies BD, almost like somebody is thinking in the US military. A step ahead of you all the time. No, the crux of my argument is that it was legal to invade Iraq or at the very least not illegal. Given that, we can then move on to the actual reasons which were eliminating Saddam before he succeeded in his quest for WMD, installing a democratic elected government in Iraq to slow the fermentation of terrorism in the Middle East. As I have shown and you failed to disprove, Israel is no threat to any country in the middle east that does not attack her. Yes, it does have human rights problems with Palestinians (whom I think deserve far better treatment) but to the whole Midle East they are no threat with their WMDs. Therefore, your argument that we should invade Israel is based only on one thing rather than the many that the Iraq decision was made on. Even you would not be able to justify it based on leftist arguments. For example; Israel has no oil to steal, Israel needs no extensive rebuilding so Haliburton could not come in and do heinious things, Bush has no secret deals going to make money off of, the US already has the ability to base troops there, it is not geographicly suitable to steal oil from other countries there. So see, even with your arguments there is nowhere near the reasons to invade Israel so can we drop this? Good thing the Saudis are implementing all these reforms, you have a lnk? What’s the rumor mill say, next week? It would be a long process, maybe even centuries, and terrorists will simply sit around and wait or try to take advantage of any freedoms coming their way to operate even more freely within these new and open societies? Truer words have rearely been spoken. Hopefully Iraqis learn fast. Who’s way Black Dog? Following this logic you think that a free for all is the answer when both know that violence precipitated by horrific revolutions in the past will be the fate of the Iraqis. I can’t believe that you find something wrong with a transitional government followed by elections. You think that the most violent, heavily armed faction should control Iraq. Wow. You must be a huge WWF fan. The west did business with whoever could control and deliver. Good business sense. They have learned that it has a ‘blowback’ factor. That is why they are giving Iraq to the Iraqis. We are agreeing with each other on the US action here and you don’t even know it.

OK. Got you. At least we are off that ridiculous ‘oil for blood’ garbage. So one of your prime reasons to be against the War in Iraq is because some US big companies beat out other US big companies using underhandedness and bribery? Wow, you have come a long way BD. Long way to go though. Read a book called ‘Night of Stone’ by Catherence Merridale. . It’s about the culture of death in Russia in the 20th century Russia that stemmed from the Revolution. Read it, or look through it a bit. You will see what happens when anarchy reigns with various power hungry, yet influential individuals here and there offering some sort of sought after organization. Horrifying, death, torture on a biblical scale everywhere. Hell cannot be worse than what can happen if what you wish is unleashed. The end? No, the beginnning. What happens afterwards is power is consolidated under ONE firm hand. It may take years for this to happen but, it will happen, and when it does, the country is united by brutality that makes the preceeding horror pale in comparrison. I would rather see the keys get turned over to the Iranians five minutes from now rather than wish this on the Iraqi people. From the article. Also note that neither story has received any play in any of the "mainstream" media. What we do have here is talk of "Al Qaeda-inspired" groups forming "links" with alleged terrorists. All I can say is, Al Qaeda sure gets around for an organization that was never more than a few hundred strong at its peak, an organization that was said to have been virtually destroyed after the Afghistan invasion. Basically, "Al Qaeda" has become shorthand for any militiant islamic group, even if the connection is as tenuous as a shared ideology. Do us a favor Black Dog, prove me wrong then. Give me some proof that the insurgents are intent on providing for free elections once they drive the US out. Can hardly wait for the election campaign promises and the census taking methods to become public, I have to hear how this is going to happen without the normal non-violent proceedures that normally happen during an election year in any western cuntry. BTW, I see Al Aladir as a kind of Kerry. Anti Bush but no real agenda, and that Sistani guy, looks like he must be for the ecology as he is definitely not big business. Where do they stand on women's rights? Trying to peg that one down. Any others out there or is it only those two I wonder. Hmmmm, good thing that foreign influences are not at play here otherwise it would get pretty messed up and you wouldn't know what anybody was up to. Say, you don't suppose that there is a police presence at all women's rallys do you? Are they taking away from the fight against the insurgency by keeping back the mobs of lesbians and homosexuals? Bet they will be smart enough and for the people enough that they won't do what ur guys did and vote in their own pay raise first thing. Probably send a bill out amongst the people rather than rip out a few limbs and stone dissenters to death. A guy walks into a crowded market and sets off a belt bomb. “Golly” he thinks to himself, “May Allah forgive me, I thought this was coalition HQ.” On the other hand, the US says that the place was no wedding but rather a weapons cache, prove them wrong. I know the market was full of civillians and not US army, the ‘Wedding’ is reported to not have been a wedding. Go for it. You do the proof this time. And in doing so guted the Regieme from the body. Then began rebuilding Iraq in the best form of democracy for the country. Organized, as unchaotic as possible. Unchaotic as possible If you have a better way to make this unchaotic and still know that a vote will take place soner or later then better let the US know. In that area anyhow. Damm, you really are starting to get it. I do have to laugh though, the US has by virtue of being the US destroyed credibillity before they arrived, there is nothing left to destroy. I, in talking with you here for months have not heard ONE GOOD POINT about the US - and you are not the one sufering. Think about them, expand your mind a bit. The US has sancioned them and made war on them for decades, none of them think the US is good and you think the US is over a barrel for public opinon? They have nothing to lose and all to gain. Sure do. You and I are probably closer together on this than you think. However, in the here and now, Israel is no threat to Arabs. You know it, I know it, Saudi Arabia knows it as do the rest. They are as much a threat to their well being as a mugger in Miami is to you or I. A completely separate problem as they piss off the Arab world rather than threaten them. Hence, your argument about Israel being due for a Regieme change is stupid as they threaten nobody that does not threaten them with those weapons. They are a non problem except for those that seek a problem to shift blame for problems closer to home, like poverty, lack of human rights and all. I would say that in one year, the US will be uninvolved in the day to day affairs of Iraq. They will maintain over a hundred thousand troops there to help back up Iraqi forces to quell people like Al Sadir and to help patrol their borders. There will be violence and it will get worse in the short term and then slowely get better. The interem government which has drafted a constitution will hold elections by mid 2005 and a true Iraq government will be formed. It will be fraught with problems as would be expected and with US help in the form of advice, aid and political intervention (with the hopeful aid of the UN) it will fall and be reborn yet again into a form that has most of the bugs out. I should think the whole process to take about five to ten years, after which, Iraq is fully Iraqi and noboy eles. Not Iranian, not Al Sadir’s, not Sistanis, not US. Just Iraqi. On the other hand, to effect change by economic influence when the world depends on the product those in power have control over is like banging your head against a wall. It would be so slow that a coup would probably happen first. You still never got back to me how democracy could come to Saudi Arabia. Tick tock ....... Please don’t think that I have ignored them Black Dog. I value your opinion and I agree with most of them, it is the interpretation and degree of reaction from you that we differ on. Yes, the US will control much and it will decrease as Iraq consolidates itself. Do you send a child into the world on it’s sixteenth birthday? How about sixteen and a half? When? To turn over Iraq to the Iraqis is to doom it to strife, death, failure to a return of US forces as another country tries to take it over by military force or by subversion. Picture turning the controls of a 747 over to a student pilot. He is eager, confident but highly inexperienced and questionably competent. The potential for failure is extreme, not a worry but the repercussions for failure dictate that no chances for it be allowed. Not sure if you understand that, but you should. 700 US sodiers have died, over ten thousand Iraqis have also died. Given that, you should be the last person on earth to take a chance that this should be given an opportunity to happen again. Do it safe, do it right - the first time. You know, measure twice, cut once. You mean to say not the USA but rather the western world I suppose given the input of same. The US reacted in this instance for reasons that we already talked about and I assume you dropped for lack of refutation. The past is the past and all of western society was there dong what it does; buy resources off of places that have shit to sell except valuable resources. Who is to blame? The east for selling it or the west for buying it? What would these people be doing if they had no oil? Look inside your home and check out the places wherre EVERYTHING is made in. USA, Canada, Germany, Hong Kong, India, man, I could even find a bottle of wine in my place made in Israel! Nothing is made in some Arabian hole, nothing! I dare you to find anything in your house made in the Middle East. And what countries in the third world are unqualified uccesses without western intervention? Got to get this list. Aid without reform is like giving money to a starving drunk. That is probably the difference that separates us.